do athiests and agnostics go to heaven

kelly1 · 19-02-2008 12:27PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Look through the Bible. God wants one thing. Faith! Nothing else pleases Him. Nothing!

You're way off the mark there. God wants us to love Him and our neighbour. He wants us to be charitable - see the parable of the good Samaritan.

1 Cor 13:13 And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.

CaptainNemo · 19-02-2008 12:36PM

kelly1 wrote: »

You're way off the mark there. God wants us to love Him and our neighbour. He wants us to be charitable - see the parable of the good Samaritan.

Soul Winner is talking about Yahweh rather than Jesus IMO.

Akrasia · 19-02-2008 12:40PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

And why would Satan do that?

because he is evil. Because his reason d'etre is to deceive humans and subvert god.
The ultimate act of subversion would be to corrupt the words in the bible including the bit about sheep knowing their masters voice.

As long you believe that there is a being like satan in existence, then absolutely nothing surrounding god can be trusted.

CaptainNemo · 19-02-2008 12:55PM

Akrasia wrote: »

because he is evil. Because his reason d'etre is to deceive humans and subvert god.
The ultimate act of subversion would be to corrupt the words in the bible including the bit about sheep knowing their masters voice.

As long you believe that there is a being like satan in existence, then absolutely nothing surrounding god can be trusted.

If Hollywood has taught me anything, it's that Satan's a sucker for a pretty girl and isn't too good at chess. Also doesn't like bright light too much. Tends to come off badly in most contests with God.

eoin5 · 19-02-2008 02:42PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well you've read it so you have the promise that you are blessed even if you don't feel it. It doesn't say you have to feel it does it? Just trust that it is true, that is what faith is, trusting God's Word despite how you feel in the natural.

Excellent, I'm both blessed and damned. I think that might make for a good classic rock song involving Meatloaf

.

threeleggedhors · 19-02-2008 11:47PM

Zulu wrote: »
So you are assured you'll get into heaven? I taught there was a little more to it than that - like say, obeying the yen commandments etc..

Well maybe I haven't - whats real worship (in your understanding) and I'll let you know.

FYI, thats an ignorant and condescending opinion to have. (and I'm using the literal meaning of them words). There are plenty of people who are far more "intelligent" than you who believe. You'd do well to remember that. A little respect isn't a bad thing you know.

[
QUOTE]Sound reasoning - I can offer one. In order for me to be here typing, according to Darwin (which I accept btw) try to calculate the probability. It's an incalculable number. Like winning the lotto everytime there a draw for a million years. Seriously think about it. The chance of a star, multiply the chance of a planet a distance from that star, multiply the chance of water, multiply the chance of basic organic life, now think of every permutation of life and the steps and the chance of their success from basic life to where we are now. Consider that number. Now what are the odds that could have happened without guidance.  If there is no god - we won the biggest lotto that can be concieved![/QUOTE]
The rest of you post is all kinda bible - which I don't really put any weight in so I wouldn't suggest you do either.

+1

...yea, but according to who? Jesus said that, but it was recorded by someone else. ...and noone claims Jesus wrote the bible, so it's second hand a best. To me that makes it very very fallible.

Yea the Jesuits are good. I like DeMillo for meditations of a non religious but spiritual pov

My apologies it was an arrogant statement indeed.

As for probability, here's a thought for you. Think of how vast the universe is, how many galaxies there are and your reasoning for how improbable life is to have come about are really actually very small. It's sooooo arrogant to say that it's improbable. Would you by the way say that it's improbable that there's no life on any other planet ??? Sorry I don't know how to properly quote and comment neatly

Zulu · 20-02-2008 12:00AM

threeleggedhors wrote: »

As for probability, here's a thought for you. Think of how vast the universe is, how many galaxies there are

I understand how vast the universe is, I also understand it's finite.

and your reasoning for how improbable life is to have come about are really actually very small.

that's just not true. In every instance where there is a planet that can sustain life, you need a series of events to happen to create intelligent life (as we understand it). It's an amazing thing.

It's sooooo arrogant to say that it's improbable.

How is that arrogant exactly for crying out loud? :rolleyes:

Would you by the way say that it's improbable that there's no life on any other planet ???

No I wouldn't say that. I'd expect that there is extraterrestrial life. I doubt there's much of it relatively speaking though. (That's my point)

Sorry I don't know how to properly quote and comment neatly

Tell me about it

No worries.

Fanny Cradock · 20-02-2008 01:01AM

Zulu wrote: »

I understand how vast the universe is, I also understand it's finite.

Really? Have you had a breakthrough in your research

eoin5 · 20-02-2008 01:13AM

Zulu wrote: »

I understand how vast the universe is, I also understand it's finite.

Have you read the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy?

Húrin · 20-02-2008 02:02AM

No, atheists can't go to heaven because they don't think it is real. Atheists do not want eternal life, they want it all to end with their physical death. So what's the point of this question?

Zaph wrote: »

As an alternative question, and assuming heaven exists, as believers would you be disappointed if atheists went to heaven despite not believing, whereas you'd have lived a more devout life?

I would love it if my atheist friends wanted to come to heaven with me. Your question is loaded with an assumption that living a devout life is less enjoyable or rewarding than living a materialistic life. I disagree with that assumption.

Húrin · 20-02-2008 02:15AM

Nullandvoid wrote: »

Also if someone like Jesus came into the world nowadays how many so called believers would really believe him to be who he claims to be?.. Very few I'd imagine.

probably. The majority of the people who witnessed Jesus and his miracles did not believe in what he was saying.

PDN · 20-02-2008 10:05AM

Zulu wrote: »

Dripping in a condescending tone.

"Soul Winner" in my understanding of christianity, a very important trait of a good christian is humility. Is that the same of your understanding?

Maybe you would do better to address the issues raised in people's posts rather than criticising others on the rather subjective grounds that you find them to be 'condescending' or to lack humility?

As for accusing me of being condescending - actually I have been quite the opposite. To be 'condescending' would be to treat you as inferior by assuming that you are ignorant or uninformed. Instead I made the mistake of assuming that, if you were participating in a discussion about Christian beliefs concerning salvation, that you would probably already possess some knowledge and understanding of what the major groups within Christianity believe. It was on this basis that I accused you of misrepresenting me. I freely apologise for making such an assumption and promise you that I will not assume such understanding on your part again. An unwarranted assumption on my part to credit you with more understanding that you actually possessed? Yes. Condescending? No. However, such a trivial misunderstanding would seem little reason to go and take things personally.

With an attitude like that the is not need to continue.

Kelly1: You seem to have level understanding I can relate to, so I'll gladly continue this topic with yourself

If you only want to discuss things with other Catholics such as Noel then all you have to do is ignore any posts by those of us who are heretics. However, if you post in these fora then any of us do have a perfect right to respond to your posts.

If, however, you start a thread and ask for a specifically Roman Catholic input then I, for one, respect that and refrain from adding any comment (unless, of course, any of the posts make claims against other Christians that are demonstrably false).

PDN · 20-02-2008 10:09AM

CaptainNemo wrote: »

That's not fair. I said "mainstream Christianity". Genuine spiritual seekers are rare and not catered for by the mainstream of most religions, which is catered for people who basically just want to get by, have families, work, and be generally good people. You put a lot of words into my mouth there that were not intended.

Well, I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth. I am, however, at a bit of a loss to understand what you did mean.

Many posters on this board (including myself) belong to mainstream Christian denominations. We find our Christian experiences to be exciting and fulfilling.

So, when you say "Mainstream Christianity is for the masses and isn't going to satisfy any genuine and intelligent spiritual seeker" what do you mean?

CaptainNemo · 20-02-2008 10:55AM

PDN wrote: »

Well, I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth. I am, however, at a bit of a loss to understand what you did mean.

Many posters on this board (including myself) belong to mainstream Christian denominations. We find our Christian experiences to be exciting and fulfilling.

So, when you say "Mainstream Christianity is for the masses and isn't going to satisfy any genuine and intelligent spiritual seeker" what do you mean?

It's pretty clear that you do understand what I mean, but disagree with it, which is fine. If I explain myself on this subject you're likely to take offence since it would come down to an argument about whether or not you personally are a "genuine spiritual seeker". Let's just say that I expressed a personal opinion which you don't have to be concerned about if you're happy with where you're at in your religious life. After all I don't know you and can't comment on your tendencies. My sweeping generalization may or may not apply to you :-P

Zulu · 20-02-2008 11:21AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Really? Have you had a breakthrough in your research

well, there exists a current accepted understanding that the universe is growing, and that it is finite (albeit massive). This is the understnding I've been educated in. I may well be very wrong, but that tends to be the way with physics.

Zulu · 20-02-2008 11:44AM

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you would do better to address the issues raised in people's posts rather than criticising others on the rather subjective grounds that you find them to be 'condescending' or to lack humility?

Perhaps, but I've tried to do that and failed. Once again there exists an element of condescending and aloof poster who can't discuss a topic without resorting to arrogance. Perhaps I have fallen foul of this.
All it has done is to reaffirm my original belief that topics here or on the atheists forums is pointless. People want to convert, not converse. (or just plain damn/abuse each other)

As for accusing me of being condescending - actually I have been quite the opposite. To be 'condescending' would be to treat you as inferior by assuming that you are ignorant or uninformed. Instead I made the mistake of assuming that, if you were participating in a discussion about Christian beliefs concerning salvation, that you would probably already possess some knowledge and understanding of what the major groups within Christianity believe.

have a reread of this if you are having difficulty understanding how someone might perceive you as condescending. You have just asserted that I don't "possess some knowledge and understanding of what the major groups within Christianity believe", after I've explained to you that I was raised and educated a christian.

It was on this basis that I accused you of misrepresenting me.

I was following the logic from your posts. You can't expect anything else from me - I don't know you personally

I freely apologise for making such an assumption and promise you that I will not assume such understanding on your part again. An unwarranted assumption on my part to credit you with more understanding that you actually possessed? Yes. Condescending? No.

You don't think you are being a little condescending and patronising now?

However, such a trivial misunderstanding would seem little reason to go and take things personally.

Perhaps, to be honest I just don't enjoy discussing topics with patronising and condescending people. The conversation rarely progresses into anything other than a tit for tat.

Life is too short. I prefer to converse with people who have respect.

Pompey Magnus · 20-02-2008 12:10PM

Zulu wrote: »

.

Sound reasoning - I can offer one. In order for me to be here typing, according to Darwin (which I accept btw) try to calculate the probability. It's an incalculable number. Like winning the lotto everytime there a draw for a million years. Seriously think about it. The chance of a star, multiply the chance of a planet a distance from that star, multiply the chance of water, multiply the chance of basic organic life, now think of every permutation of life and the steps and the chance of their success from basic life to where we are now. Consider that number. Now what are the odds that could have happened without guidance. If there is no god - we won the biggest lotto that can be concieved!

You assume that you were an intended product of the chain of evolution. It is indeed amazingly unlikely that any of us managed to be born, however it is much, much more likely that somebody would be born. So whoever would be born would think themselves amazingly unlikely therefore they must be a part of a divine creation when it really was just the inevitability of someone winning the lottery.

This also is assuming that there is only one universe. There are very plausable theories in physics which suggest the possibility of an infinite set of universes which would make the your existance not only possible but inevitable, in fact there are may well be an infinite number of "you".

Anyways even if this universe is the only one to exist I don't think life is quite unlikely as you suggest. Recent research has shown that up to 60% of sun-like stars in the milky way are orbited by rocky planets which were formed by the same process that created Earth. That is an awful lot of planets. Inevitably quite a few of these will be roughly the same mass as Earth and within a distance from their star which will allow liquid water to exist. The presence of liquid water on these planets is likely as water is found on a number of planets and moons in just our solar system; Earth of course, Mars has frozen water at its poles and at one time had liquid oceans, Jupiter's moon Europa has sub-surface oceans and may have twice as much water volume as Earth's oceans, it is the most likely location for currently existing life in our Solar System outside of Earth. So what we have is that inevitably we will have a number of Earth-like planets orbiting sun-sized stars at a distance allowing liquid water to exist. These will have the ideal conditions for life to start and it is then up to chemistry to get the ball rolling.

Bduffman · 20-02-2008 12:53PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Do you care where they end up?

Whoa - thats not very christian is it? You could be damned for thinking that way

CaptainNemo · 20-02-2008 01:08PM

Bduffman wrote: »

Whoa - thats not very christian is it? You could be damned for thinking that way

Yahweh only wants faith. It's that funny hippy guy called Jesus who added a load of silly stuff about love but Soul Winner isn't into those new-fangled modern liberal ideas.

Pompey Magnus · 20-02-2008 01:26PM

Bduffman wrote: »

Whoa - thats not very christian is it? You could be damned for thinking that way

Some could say it is in fact very Christian, Soul Winner's points all stem from the Bible, not from what he neccesarily hopes Heaven to be in his own mind. It is easy enough to imagine and promote the idea that Heaven is a type of Elysian Fields where everybody goes and has a wonderful eternity, unfortunately this is a Greek pagan version of the afterlife and isn't the afterlife of Christianity. Most of us will be going to a very nasty place if Christianity is correct.

Soul Winner's attitude, whilst being seemingly arrogant, is probably much more Christian than the wishy-washy believer who says that perhaps atheists and pagans and unbaptised babies do go to Heaven. That is not what their Bible teaches, it is not what their God has said and it was not what orthodox Christianity has promoted for close to 2000 years. Of course the reason that this more open-door policy to Heaven is now being taught by alot of Christians is nothing to do with new revelations from God, it is either because they realise that the average lay person will no longer accept a religion which is willing to condemn a person because he loves another man or someone who follows another faith or any number of reasons that would have seen you condemned just 50 years ago, or else a realisation that they themselves do not want to believe in a God like that so instead of going the whole distance and rejecting Christianity they instead paint a picture in their mind of what they want it to be.

It appears to me to be either just a cyncal attempt to keep Church figures up and the money rolling in or else self delusion in order for believers to feel comfortable with their own faith. I think it is probably closer to the latter reason.

CaptainNemo · 20-02-2008 02:02PM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Some could say it is in fact very Christian, Soul Winner's points all stem from the Bible, not from what he neccesarily hopes Heaven to be in his own mind. It is easy enough to imagine and promote the idea that Heaven is a type of Elysian Fields where everybody goes and has a wonderful eternity, unfortunately this is a Greek pagan version of the afterlife and isn't the afterlife of Christianity. Most of us will be going to a very nasty place if Christianity is correct.

Soul Winner's attitude, whilst being seemingly arrogant, is probably much more Christian than the wishy-washy believer who says that perhaps atheists and pagans and unbaptised babies do go to Heaven. That is not what their Bible teaches, it is not what their God has said and it was not what orthodox Christianity has promoted for close to 2000 years. Of course the reason that this more open-door policy to Heaven is now being taught by alot of Christians is nothing to do with new revelations from God, it is either because they realise that the average lay person will no longer accept a religion which is willing to condemn a person because he loves another man or someone who follows another faith or any number of reasons that would have seen you condemned just 50 years ago, or else a realisation that they themselves do not want to believe in a God like that so instead of going the whole distance and rejecting Christianity they instead paint a picture in their mind of what they want it to be.

It appears to me to be either just a cyncal attempt to keep Church figures up and the money rolling in or else self delusion in order for believers to feel comfortable with their own faith. I think it is probably closer to the latter reason.

Very interesting post, thank you. The question of whether or not the church should "adapt" to its social context or not is controversial, and I think has its roots in attitudes towards the Bible - is it to be read literally, as an immutable set of instructions and attitudes, or as a document created by humans (inspired or otherwise) in a specific social context, and therefore open to reinterpretation in different social contexts?

Many modern people feel that they should be free to choose or create their own spiritual path, whether that means choosing a different religion, or no religion at all. Since the main Judaic religions all claim to be the One True Faith, there is no basis for deciding between them other than what you were brought up as or what appeals to you most about them. If any of them were more self-evidently "true" than the others, then presumably the faith-response of most humans would be to that one rather than the others. The fact that this is not the case reflects the fact that, in an underlying sense, most religions are saying the same thing in different words or metaphors. The Christians say non-Christians go to hell, the Muslims say non-Muslims go to hell, the Buddhists say we're already IN hell and have to get out, and so it goes.

To someone who believes in the axiomatic sense that the Bible is literally true and cannot be contradicted, there is no way to debate the issue. They define "Christian" as "What the Bible says". This definition, obviously, is not the only possible one, but it's impossible to debate the issue because the Bible cannot be "proved" to be true, it is simply taken on faith. Faith ends debate. When two faiths are mutually contradictory there can be no debate - there must either be mutual tolerance, or war. If your particular faith specifically removes the possibility of tolerance as much of Christianity and Islam do, you're in a sticky spot.

PDN · 20-02-2008 02:54PM

Zulu wrote: »

Perhaps, but I've tried to do that and failed. Once again there exists an element of condescending and aloof poster who can't discuss a topic without resorting to arrogance. Perhaps I have fallen foul of this.

So, because you've failed to address issues you want to concentrate on personal issues such as whether someone appears condescending or arrogant?

have a reread of this if you are having difficulty understanding how someone might perceive you as condescending. You have just asserted that I don't "possess some knowledge and understanding of what the major groups within Christianity believe", after I've explained to you that I was raised and educated a christian.

I'm not responsible for how I appear to someone else. I assumed that you had a rudimentary understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith. If you had such an understanding then you would have known that those who believe in justification by faith do not therefore believe that you can go breaking the commandments whenever you want.

Now, you can't have your cake and eat it. Either you have a basic understanding of general Christian belief (not just Roman Catholicism) about salvation (in which case I was right in assuming you were misrepresenting me), or you don't (in which case I was wrong in making that assumption).

You don't think you are being a little condescending and patronising now?

No, I'm simply addressing the logic of your posts.

If I stated my subjective feelings about you then I may come across as patronising and condescending, if not downright insulting - but that is not the purpose of these boards. I'm happy to discuss the issues people raise.

Life is too short. I prefer to converse with people who have respect.

Respect is generally earned. If you discuss issues in a rational and logical manner, and avoid dwelling on your subjective opinion of other posters' personalities, then respect will follow as a matter of course.

Pompey Magnus · 20-02-2008 02:56PM

CaptainNemo wrote: »

Very interesting post, thank you. The question of whether or not the church should "adapt" to its social context or not is controversial, and I think has its roots in attitudes towards the Bible - is it to be read literally, as an immutable set of instructions and attitudes, or as a document created by humans (inspired or otherwise) in a specific social context, and therefore open to reinterpretation in different social contexts?

To my mind the rules are either unchangeable or worthless, there can be no in-between. If Christianity keeps changing what it says it loses any right that it thinks it has to tell people what is moral. I mean we have the ridiculous situation where up until recently parents whose child died before birth were told by the Catholic Church that their baby will never know God and is instead sent to Limbo where they will suffer mild punishment for eternity as they died uncleansed of Original Sin. Today Limbo is mostly rejected as a concept and it is taught that babies do get into Heaven. How does that work? How does an entire state of afterlife just disappear?

Also not too long ago it was a heresy to believe that the Earth orbits the sun because it contradicts Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 104:5 and Ecclesiastes 1:5. Today it is not a heresy, in 1992 the Catholic Church officially accepted that the Earth in fact does orbit the sun and not vice versa. To defend themselves Christians now say the Bible was not intended to be a science book, this argument loses alot of its force as they only admitted this after scientific discoveries made them admit it (they did do their best to stunt and delay these discoveries but eventually Christianity did concede defeat). So one day Galileo is a convicted heretic, the next day the Catholic Church have the nerve to claim he is a hero who helped reveal God's universe to humanity.

How can a faith claim authority to say what is a sin when we don't know what their stance will be in 100 years time. It could well be the case that homosexuality is accepted by the Church as not being a serious sin and not worthy of eternal damnation, perhaps they will find some loophole when it comes to stem cell research, who knows? But if they do change their teachings to suit the zeitgeist then they have absolutely no authority to tell people what is a sin and what isn't.

CaptainNemo · 20-02-2008 03:04PM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

To my mind the rules are either unchangeable or worthless, there can be no in-between. If Christianity keeps changing what it says it loses any right that it thinks it has to tell people what is moral. I mean we have the ridiculous situation where up until recently parents whose child died before birth were told by the Catholic Church that their baby will never know God and is instead sent to Limbo where they will suffer mild punishment for eternity as they died uncleansed of Original Sin. Today Limbo is mostly rejected as a concept and it is taught that babies do get into Heaven. How does that work? How does an entire state of afterlife just disappear?

Also not too long ago it was a heresy to believe that the Earth orbits the sun because it contradicts Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 104:5 and Ecclesiastes 1:5. Today it is not a heresy, in 1992 the Catholic Church officially accepted that the Earth in fact does orbit the sun and not vice versa. To defend themselves Christians now say the Bible was not intended to be a science book, this argument loses alot of its force as they only admitted this after scientific discoveries made them admit it (they did do their best to stunt and delay these discoveries but eventually Christianity did concede defeat). So one day Galileo is a convicted heretic, the next day the Catholic Church have the nerve to claim he is a hero who helped reveal God's universe to humanity.

How can a faith claim authority to say what is a sin when we don't know what their stance will be in 100 years time. It could well be the case that homosexuality is accepted by the Church as not being a serious sin and not worthy of eternal damnation, perhaps they will find some loophole when it comes to stem cell research, who knows? But if they do change their teachings to suit the zeitgeist then they have absolutely no authority to tell people what is a sin and what isn't.

All totally valid points. All these contradictions can be resolved if you think of any church as a fallible human institution that has usually lost touch to some extent with the intentions of its founder. I always found that the best policy was simply not to take any of their statements too seriously, and instead search for the truth and the good hidden underneath all the other stuff. After all your grandad may think the world is flat and man didn't go to the moon, but you would usually not give him too hard a time about it, you just kind of laugh with your relatives and go "Well, that's Grandad for you!" but he still gives presents and is a decent gardener and a basically good person so you forgive him his delusions. You just wouldn't seek his advice on anything to do with physics or science. The church is pretty similar. Thank god we live in a time when their ability to do things like, say, burning people alive for contradicting them, has been curtailed. Like grandad: maybe he beat his kids when he was younger, but now that he's senile and in a nursing home it's pointless to keep on berating him for it. Forgive, forget and move on.

CerebralCortex · 20-02-2008 03:12PM

CaptainNemo wrote: »

...Thank god we live in a time when their ability to do things like, say, burning people alive for contradicting them, has been curtailed.....

No lets thank ourselves.

Pompey Magnus · 20-02-2008 03:12PM

CaptainNemo wrote: »

All totally valid points. All these contradictions can be resolved if you think of any church as a fallible human institution that has usually lost touch to some extent with the intentions of its founder. I always found that the best policy was simply not to take any of their statements too seriously, and instead search for the truth and the good hidden underneath all the other stuff. After all your grandad may think the world is flat and man didn't go to the moon, but you would usually not give him too hard a time about it, you just kind of laugh with your relatives and go "Well, that's Grandad for you!" but he still gives presents and is a decent gardener and a basically good person so you forgive him his delusions.

If all religious people had the same attitude as this then the world would be a far better place and I would find it much easier to follow Christianity (not for any divine reason or hope of life after death but instead as a basic system of morals which points people in the right direction to live a good life). Christianity has alot of good points, its just the weeds of fundamentalism and very strict literalism have grown around it and obscured most of its positives.

Christianity makes for a good philosophy but a bad religion.

kelly1 · 20-02-2008 03:22PM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

To my mind the rules are either unchangeable or worthless, there can be no in-between. If Christianity keeps changing what it says it loses any right that it thinks it has to tell people what is moral. I mean we have the ridiculous situation where up until recently parents whose child died before birth were told by the Catholic Church that their baby will never know God and is instead sent to Limbo where they will suffer mild punishment for eternity as they died uncleansed of Original Sin. Today Limbo is mostly rejected as a concept and it is taught that babies do get into Heaven. How does that work? How does an entire state of afterlife just disappear?

Limbo was never a dogma of the Church. afaik, it was a theory put forward by Thomas Aquinas and seems to have been generally accepted by the Church. The fate of unbaptized infants is still unknown but we have hope in God's mercy.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Also not too long ago it was a heresy to believe that the Earth orbits the sun because it contradicts Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 104:5 and Ecclesiastes 1:5. Today it is not a heresy, in 1992 the Catholic Church officially accepted that the Earth in fact does orbit the sun and not vice versa.

I doubt very much if the Church declared this dogmatically. It may have been their conviction which is a different kettle of fish.

Pompey Magnus · 20-02-2008 03:45PM

kelly1 wrote: »

Limbo was never a dogma of the Church. afaik, it was a theory put forward by Thomas Aquinas and seems to have been generally accepted by the Church.

You are kind of correct. The Council of Carthage in 416, after being convinced by the great church father St Augustine, made it dogma that unbaptised babies go to hell for eternity. As far as I am aware Thomas Aquinas was unaware of this dogma as it was lost during the middle ages and so proposed the idea of Limbo. He was being unintentionally heretical as the dogma had been set and can never be removed in the Catholic faith but he wasn't to know.

As St Augustine said in his De Anima:

'If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin.'"

and also in Ad Hieron:

"Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (water baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it (the Catholic Church) unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ"

kelly1 · 20-02-2008 03:51PM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

If all religious people had the same attitude as this then the world would be a far better place and I would find it much easier to follow Christianity (not for any divine reason or hope of life after death but instead as a basic system of morals which points people in the right direction to live a good life). Christianity has alot of good points, its just the weeds of fundamentalism and very strict literalism have grown around it and obscured most of its positives.

Christianity makes for a good philosophy but a bad religion.

Christianity is founded on the basis that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life. Without knowing the truth, we cannot do God's will and it is doing God's will that leads to salvation. We need to know for instance whether contraception is morally acceptable to God or not. It's not something we can leave to chance and hope God won't notice.

kelly1 · 20-02-2008 03:54PM

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

You are kind of correct. The Council of Carthage in 416, after being convinced by the great church father St Augustine, made it dogma that unbaptised babies go to hell for eternity. As far as I am aware Thomas Aquinas was unaware of this dogma as it was lost during the middle ages and so proposed the idea of Limbo. He was being unintentionally heretical as the dogma had been set and can never be removed in the Catholic faith but he wasn't to know.

I'd like to challenge you to find a document showing that it is an article of dogma that unbaptized infants are damned. Conviction and dogma are not the same thing.

do athiests and agnostics go to heaven

Comments